The causal contribution of the Bush White House to the mortgage mess, the price of gasoline and food, and the weakness in the economy is most certainly not due to its devotion to conservative principles. The Bush maxim, "If someone hurts government's gotta move," is the polar opposite of conservatism. 180 degrees out, you might say. The
60% growth in the federal budget in seven years, the runup in food prices, and the disastrous nation-building adventure in Iraq came to pass for two principal reasons: one, that Bush is a buffoon, and two, that we had a unified government (the same party in control of both the White House and Congress) for most of the Bush years. These things, and any other Bushist disaster you care to mention, are 100% not due to Bush's "conservatism." I'm sorry, but anyone who thinks Bush is a conservative, or even that he is right of center, either does not know the definition of conservatism, has not been paying attention or thinking for himself, or is an idiot. He's probably all of the above.The correct analysis in any presidential election is, who ranks the lowest on the scale of buffoonery/amateurism/foolishness, and which party has control of Congress?
Unified government is the greatest evil of all, at least among those evils we can easily control. Since the Republicans have managed to manuver themselves out of a congressional majority for the foreseeable future, the choice of McCain for President is automatic.
On the buffoonery scale, Obama's promises that his administration is going to blow up the role of federal government, e.g., in the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions and in the federal takeover of the 20% of GDP that is the health care sector, at the same time as he intends to exclude the representatives of the affected industries from any role whatsoever in the writing of the thousands of pages of laws and regulations that these takeovers will require, gives him the edge in a walk. In fact we should retire the trophy -- after we have inscribed with the names of all the Obamaniacs who think it's a good idea to have the amateurs who actually write our laws do so without any input whatsoever on the part of the affected industries. How the f**k is that a good idea? It's nuts.
As to all the rest of the Obama agenda, he is more and more a stealth candidate, a blank slate blathering generalities that each listener can fill in with whatever content matches his personal values. That is the most dangerous candidate of all. That is exactly what we have in President Bush -- a content-free vessel interested in only one thing: power.
McCain is not a lot better on the buffoonery scale. But his small margin in this area, combined with the giganitc benefit of the divided government that his election would bring for at least four years, if not eight, makes him the far better choice of the two.
Put it this way: if you want to see another eight years with a 60% growth in federal spending and a no-holds barred assault on personal liberty in the form of Big Government interference in every nook and cranny of our private lives, vote for Obama. Obama truly represents the third and fourth terms of the Bushist regime. The difference will be a fine-tuning in the quality of the Big Government disasters that we will experience, but the quantity will be the same if not greater.
180 Out